Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Security BCP Review

From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:26:07 -0500

As part of the preparation for the shepherd write-up, I reviewed the
document and have the following comments:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-19.html

General comment

The document refers to a number of drafts that are not active anymore,
e.g., token binding, pop key distribution, signing http requests, etc.

What is the reason behind including these in this document?

Section 4.5.4

I am not clear on how the attacker can do that. Let’s take the
code_challenge example. Wouldn’t the AS be able to detect this attack
because it gets the *code verifier* associated with the *original code
challenge* from the Client?

Nits

Section 2.1, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: “MAY rely the” to “, MAY rely on
the”

Section 2.3, second paragraph: replace ietf-oauth-resource-indicators with
RFC8707

Section 4.1.3. Last paragraph: replace the jwsreq and PAR draft references
with rfc9101 and rfc9126 respectively.

Who might want to sweep through the document and update the various
references, as there seem to be too many old references

Regards,

 Rifaat